If CNN wants to know why people claim they are favorable to democrats and liberals, this, although I admit small, is a good example. Sunny Hostin a legal analyst with CNN, was on with Ashleigh Banfield to discuss Donald Sterling's racist remarks. While on she decides to make a reference to the supreme court case that upheld(6-2) the Michigan law that banned colleges and universities from using preferential treatment with their admissions practices. She makes the incredibly enlightening point that this proves racism still exists. Therefore the supreme court decision was wrong because they were just assuming that we didn't need affirmative action anymore since there was no more racism. What depth of reasoning for a legal analyst. And I understand now she has her own show. I thought only Fox gave their own shows to partisans.

Let me explain the supreme court's decision and their reasoning. They didn't assume that racism didn't exist. If anything they may have believed that the Michigan law banning preferential treatment was combating a form of racism. Regardless of that, in the end they believed that the Michigan legislature had a right to pass a law that outlawed pereferential treatment based on race. I thought the civil rights amendment would have banned that already.The thing that gets me is that not only do liberals like Sunny Hostin believe that these pereferential treatment policies are good practice, they want what many believe to be unfair racial policies to be constitutionally protected. This means if somenone disagrees with her view that preferential treatment policies based on race are good practice and want go through their protected rights as a citizen and pass a law to outlaw those policies, the courts ought prevent them by making up legal reasoning out of thin air deem it unconstitutional. Good thing the supreme court didn't agree. The 4 conservatives, one middle guy, and even liberal had to admit that there is nothing in the constitution that prevents the people of the state of Michigan from practicing their democratic rright to pass laws that it deems will detour unfair racial practices. Unfortunately two liberal judges disagreed. Lets be thankful that it wasn't enough.Naturally, there is no attempt made by Banfield to challenge the notion.

Whistle blowers are supposed to be praised and supported by truth-seeking journalists. They shouldn't be attacked nor should they even be ignored. But that is what CNN is doing with Sharyl Attkisson. Any reasonable look﻿ at the facts surrounding ﻿her accusations can only lead any reasonably objective observer to realize she is being honest and should be praised for her fearlessness. As CNN has done with liberals in the past.

Brian Stelter, CNN's objective analyst had her on his show. Prior to showing the interview he sets it up by having us look skeptically at Attkisson.﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿'Up first this morning, serious accusations of journalistic wrongdoing. It involved one of the country'﻿﻿﻿s most respected news organization, CBS News. They come from Sharyl Attkisson, an investigative reporter who resigned from CBS last month after more than 20 years there'.Since her resignation, he's appeared on FOX News twice. And that has stirred up speculation that she may be hired there in the future, and that comes amid allegations that unanimously sourced news stories that say Attkisson left CBS because she sensed liberal bias. In other words, because supposedly, liberal executive and producers at CBS did not like the stories she did, stories critical of the Obama administration on polarizing topics, like the president's health care overhaul, and the killing of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya. 'Now, when I sat down to talk with Attkisson this week, it turns out she had a story to tell that she had not told before, of a new organization that she claimed will cave corporate interests and let political bias dictate what stories got to air. I also asked her some important questions that FOX News had not asked her, about claims of a lack of accuracy and journalistic rigor in her own work.'﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿ He could have mentioned that she had won several awards and even worked at CBS as a substitute anchor. Or the set-up could have been to mention that she freely criticized the Bush Administration for 8 years, but says when she wanted to do critical stories of Obama, they wouldn't allow them to run. Instead he introduces her as the controrversy instead of simply a righteous whistle-blower and that she might just be a conservative nut. Pointing out that FOX News never challenged her regarding questions about her own reporting was simply Brian telling his audience that she is getting favorable treatment from conservatives and getting his audience to view her suspiciously. After reading the transcript you can clearly see that these accuracy questions did not, at the very least display any horrible reporting. There would be no reason to bring these issues up even if there was something lacking in her reporting as a story about vaccinations being linked to autism from several years ago has nothing to do with Benghazi, or other reports critical of the administration. As for his comment about her never before told claim about the 'new organization', that she claims shuts down her stories, I can't figure out what he is referring to. It might be the whole media mattersdiscussion they got into. It might be the corporate interest she was talking about when he asked her to provide an example of a story being squashed. Nevertheless, he was trying to make her appear to be a conspiracy cook. He then brings up criticisms of her as having a conservative bias. She denies, rightly pointing out that she had been extremely critical of the Bush Administratioin in the past and says they are trying to controversialize the issue. Essentially trying to attack the messenger. It is Brian Stelter himself who brings up 'media matters' a liberal group that has criticized her for being innaccurate, and asks her if she thinks someone is paying them to trash her. She says it could be happening and that they get a lot of money to do what they do which is advocate against republicans and try to shape media coverage in a pro democrat way. When Brian Stelter asks her this he sounds as if he thinks she is some sort of conspiracy nut. Today, he has David Brock on, representing media matters, who denies that they go after people for money. Again the whole segment made her look like a conspiracy kook. Meanwhile he does a very friendly interview making it seem as though media matters is simply performing some sort of public service in pointing out conservative bias even while they admit they contact the media to try to influence what the coverage will be, not just critique media coverage which is what conservative watchdog groups engage in.May 18, 2014Still to this day, CNN is pretty much blacking out the Benghazi story. When the email that came out from admin. official Ben Rhodes asking everyone to blame the attacks on the video and say it wasn't a terrorist attack when they talk to the media it received lots of attention at the Jay Carney press conference but CNN refused to give it even a second of coverage until the next day. Most of the rest of the media conducted a black out as well. While correspondents Jonathan Carl from ABC and Major Garret from CBS asked tough questions, the news organizations they work for have refused to air their questions

What made Cnn decide to start covering the nevada rancher story after a couple of weeks of pretending it didn't exist?

I have the answer. You would think armed federal agents showing up at Cliven Bundy's ranch and a bunch of armed citizens there to confront them over the issue of Cliven Bundy refusing to pay cattle grazing fees would warrant the attention of CNN. But it wasn't until Cliven Bundy's racially charged comments that CNN decided to give this story the light of day. This gave CNN an angle through which they could attack conservative commentators, Fox News, and most importantly, republicans. Anyone who watched CNN could clearly see they are trying to turn this into some kind of republican scandal. But there is really no evidence that republicans were all that supportive of Bundy. The only republican I found that had been outspokenly supportive was Senator Dean Heller of Nevada. He said he thought the armed supporters were patriots. It should be noted these people had a right to carry those weapons. He also made some very tempered comments such as such as urging everyone to go home after the BLM left and said we desperately need a peaceful resolution to this conflict. Dana Bash accused republicans of kissing up to Cliven Bundy to gain favor with the right. Where is the evidence of it? I've looked high and low and I can't find any republicans, including Dean Heller who said Cliven Bundy shouldn't have to pay his cattle grazing fees. CNN is dipicting republicans as having been burned by sucking-up to right-wing extremists and it seems to be a completely made up story.

Carol Costello attacks republican's in my view, by putting them on the defensive and it's utterly unwarrented. She references some women who calls herself 'conservative black chick', and says this incident brings to light that republicans don't invite blacks to the party. That is such a dumb statement on so many levels. First of all, republicans were hardly supportive of Cliven Bundy and secondly, once he made the racisist comments they were nothing but critical of him. Many conservatives who did support him were as quick and agressive as they could be about condeming him. It's amazing CNN doesn't care about:

the evidence displaying we were intentionally misled about the nature of the Benghazi attacks.

evidence, including emails showing the IRS deliberately targeted conservative groups but not liberals

Robert Gates Book stating that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton admitted they agreed with the Iraq surge but were publicly against it.

What they do care about:

Attacking the republicans because of Cliven Bundy's remarks.

Attacking Chris Christie because of bridgegate even if they have to accuse him of setting a tone that would allow for something like this to happen.

Here is an open question to CNN: Doesn't anyone there think it's more important for Barack Obama Hillary Clinton to answer for why they said they took the side against the Iraq surge when they really believed it was the right policy?

So has the media ever admitted it was wrong. Or any of the critics in congress. If not, than maybe they can be accused of war-mongering now. Or maybe Obama can be accused of war-mongering.Don't tell me, Iran suddenly restarted it's nuclear program almost the moment Obama took office. So it's perfectly fine for Obama and the media to talk tough but Bush was war mongering.Here is a 2009 story about Iran being censured at the U.N.http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/iran-censured-u-n-nuclear-meeting-tehran-blasts-iaea-vows-resist-threats-article-1.417607. All of a sudden, in the first year of Obama's presidency, Iran nuclear program is a serious issue that has to be dealt with.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/156/26473.htmlhttp://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=396174http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/10/01/iran.geneva.nuclear/index.html?iref=24hourshttp://www.cnn.com/2011/11/15/opinion/cronin-iran-nuclear-threat/http://edition.cnn.hu/2009/POLITICS/05/19/mideast.netanyahu.dc/index.html?iref=newssearchhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piSYZHJG-YMhttp://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/why-did-a-cnn-anchor-just-call-iran-nuclear-deal-a-train-wreck/http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/06/iran.nie/http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/07/world/meast/irans-nuclear-capabilities-fast-factshttp://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0712/07/siu.01.htmlhttp://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1007/06/ec.01.htmlCheck this from July 2010 CNN, Campbell BrownPOLLAK: I would suspect not, although this is one of those issues where there is a huge amount of private discussion that goes on, although it was very interesting to see today in a story that just came out the ambassador of to the UAE came out and openly advocated for military attacks on the Iranian nuclear program.(Wait a minute! I thought only Bush wanted attacks on Iran so he could increase his popularity.)So, I think there is a developing consensus that something needs to be done and that it would be very, very bad if the Iranians went nuclear. BROWN: Peter? BEINART: I agree with Noah. I don't think the two leaders are fundamentally on the same page. They may both be supportive of sanctions, but when push comes to shove, I think the Israelis may really want the U.S. to take military action. And I think most of what we have seen from the Obama administration, and, in fact, even importantly, from the U.S. military, which seems very reluctant to get involved in a third war in the Middle East, is that the United States, as much as the U.S. wants to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon, does not have an appetite for war with Iran. BROWN: Or capability, it seems, at the moment. It gets more interesting. I found more. Just what did Bush say that was so controvesial?Here is a snippet'The Bush administration has spent years warning that Iran's development of nuclear power plants and enriched uranium masked an effort to produce an atomic bomb. But in a reversal of a 2005 report, the National Intelligence Estimate released Monday concluded that Iran suspended nuclear weapons work in late 2003 and was unlikely to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb until at least 2010.' At least 2010 means if they re-started their nuclear program immediately after the period the NIE said they suspended their program through. So what do you make of this from september of 2009:'The United States wants Iran to provide international inspectors with full access to a newly disclosed underground uranium enrichment plant that Obama administration officials say is both illegal and probably intended for developing weapons'.Didn't the NIE say that Iran suspended it's program in 2003. Yes - But that information, intelligence said, was only good through July of 2007. After that they may have re-started their program. However you could make the same arguement for any rhetoric that Bush may have delivered such as the one below.I guess this is Bush's war-mongering statement: "If your interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be preventing Iran from having the knowledge necessary to make nuclear weapons." Sounds like he's concerned about Iran going nuclear, not unlike Obama and the main stream media starting in 2009.More from Biden: "Are you telling me a president that's briefed every single morning, who's fixated on Iran, is not told back in August that the tentative conclusion of 16 intelligence agencies in the U.S. government said they had abandoned their effort for a nuclear weapon in '03?" He admitted he was told. The key their is tentative. Actually, according to Dana Perino, Bush was given information that Iran might have halted their nuclear program in 2003 but they were not sure yet. Even once he received the information it still remained a fact that although the report claims to have high confidence in it's findings it is not reported as a certainty. Furthermore Iran could start-up their nuclear program at any time.Here are the major judgements of the Dec 2007 NIE report

I discovered this from ISIS(Institute for Science and International Security)' The 2007 NIE judged with moderate confidence that a restart had not happened as of mid-2007. It should be noted that this assessment about a restart was rejected by key European allies and Israel, which all assessed that Iran was likely continuing to develop its nuclear weaponization capabilities and that its nuclear weapons program likely existed after 2003.The only conclusion we can draw is that the mainstream press, particularly CNN was overly eager to attack President Bush for being a war-monger most likely done for the pure political purpose helping Democrats. There is simply no plausible explanation for why they killed Bush for being overly concerned about Iran gaining nuclear weapons and then suddenly once Obama becomes president start showing great concerns themselves along with Obama. I have done some research and I have not been able to find any actual quotes from Bush saying that Iran was eminently about to a obtain nuclear weapons.

What did Dan Rather Get Right about the Bush National guard awol story?Apparently Dan Rather, former CBS Prime time anchor, is still claiming he basically got the story right when back in 2004, during the presidential campaign, he reported that he had documented evidence that President Bush went awol when he served in the national gaurd and did not get a legitimate leave of absense as he claimed.He spoke about this when commenting on the Lara Logan forced leave of absence she recieved from CBS for inaccurately reporting a story about a self-proclaimed hero in the Benghazi attacksRather said that unlike the situation with her story, he basically got the report right. I would like to know what about his report was right.This is a story that first broke about in 2000. It was reported that Bush did not serve out his full term in the National Guard. The former president admitted this but said he received a legitimate leave of absence. Apparently he was not able to prove that he received a legitimate leave of absence, but the media, as hard as it tried, failed to produce evidence that it had. Of course that didn't stop the media from giving this issue lots of attention during the 2000 campaign. From what I remember Bush didn't seem to want to talk about the story, which gave me the impression, and I think the majority of voters, that there was legitimacy to the story in spite of the lack of proof. Given the amount of attention the story got, it seems that most voters were aware of the accusation, but it also seemed they didn't care. Probably thinking that this was something that happened thirty years ago and shouldn't be a part of the 2000 Presidential campaign. Down the stretch of the campaign, after some intense coverage, the issue died out, and Bush won the Presidency. The awol story never came up again until the next presidential campaign. In spite of the voters lack of interest in the story in 2000, the mainstream news media decided to go into awol scandal overdrive once again in 2004, just in time for the presidential election. Why it hadn't gotten any attention in the interim, you can guess for yourself. The biggest rallying cries came from CNN and of course CBS. Dan Rather, CBS News Anchor, claimed he had indisputable evidence that President Bush did not have an approved leave of absence and received favorable treatment. He did the story on CBS's highly rated show '60 minutes'. And showed a document, supposedly by his commander to prove it. It contained criticisms regarding his performance as well as his commander claiming Bush went awol. That is when the story became immediately disputed. Experts on typewriters and print used by typewriters said the document had to be a fake. Dan Rather denied that it could be. He reasoned this claiming that his source was impeccable. The Commander had passed away. His source was the person who provided the document to him.It turned out that it was proven the document was a fake. His source turned out to be a long time enemy Goerge W. Bush, and he ultimately admitted it was fake and that he faked it himself. How Rather could say that a long time enemy of Bush is an impeccable source is beyond me. The wife of the deceased gentleman who produced the document said it couldn't have been true. She said her husband liked Bush and never would have said the things in hte document. She also said she wanted to talk to Rather but he refused.CNN responded to this by saying it's no big deal. The main story is that Bush didn't serve all the time he was supposed to and that was really all that mattered. It did get some decent attention on MSNBC and some other mainstream sources.I still can't figure out what about his story could have been right. Maintaing that Bush hadn't properly served his time isn't his story if that is what he is talking about. That had been reported long before him. The guy who produced the documents said he burned the originals after he made the copies so c'mon already. And I have seen it reported that he actually admitted the documents were falseTo me this was a blockbuster scandal. A major news anchor was attempting to bring down a president with a story that he knew wasn't true.

Sharyl Atkisson appeared with Howard Kurtz yesterday on Fox's Show Media Buzz to talk about her departure from CBS news. Ms. Atkisson continued to say what everyone has known for a long time which is that she left CBS because they weren't letting her do stories that were critical of the Obama administration.To me this story seems to be a scandal in and of itself. The mainstream news media however, seems to disagree. In one article I read the columnist said rebublicans want to cast her as a 'victim of liberal bias who was gutsy and stood up to her bosses for not letting her stories critisizing the Obama administration run. The article added that liberals want to cast her becoming agenda driven saying she fell down a 'Rabbit Hole.' New York magazine headlined, “The Right’s Favorite Mainstream Benghazi Reporter Resigns From CBS.”It's amazing how an investigative journalist simply does her job, which in this case happened to be revealing some facts that happen to be unfavorable to the Obama Administration, and immediately her motives are questioned, and she gets trashed or completely ignored by the mainstream media. How in the world they can question her like this is beyond me and takes a lot of nerve. Even for the openly liberal media. This isn't someone whos has been working as a conservative in the media for the last twenty years. She began her career at CNN, Went to CBS for twenty years, and has won emmy awards for her journalism. In addition she has done countless negative storie about Goerge W. Bush when he was in office. Now that she wants to reveal something negative about Obama suddenly she is agenda driven or “The Right’s Favorite Mainstream Benghazi Reporter."The news media should be covering these issues themselves instead of attacking Sharyl Attkisson for covering them.In her interview with Howard Kurtz, Kurtz asked her if she feels she was a vicitim of liberal bias at the network. She didn't answer the question directly but did rattle off about six or seven negative stories she did about the Bush Administration and added that CBS was always happy to get them and never had any problems running those stories.

Suspicious ties to the White House for CBSAnother interesting point that cannot go unnoticed is the fact that Ben Rhodes, Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting according to emails that have been released had a hand in creating the innacurate Benghazi talking points. These e-mail revealed that the administration had atleast some correct talking points but eliminated the correct information and left in the false information. I guess it is just a coincidence that David Rhodes is the president of CBS News.